Bad Match Up.. A delusional Fancy term or does it has any truth in it? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Bad Match Up.. A delusional Fancy term or does it has any truth in it?

Shinoj
03-18-2012, 07:56 PM
As Shown By Federer after Beating Nadal, Where he clearly took the attack to Nadal; taking the Ball early Playing Aggresively all the while and hence beating Nadal.

Does it now show that there was nothing called as Bad match Up for federer against Nadal. It was the same old SLOW COURT same Old Nadal and his game Plan of hitting Looping Balls to federer's Backhand. And Gues what? It somehow didnt work.


What does it show then?

All the while when Federer lost to nadal he purely had a Mental Block which came from losing the previous Match Badly. He said in his quotes also after his victory against Nadal




After beating Rafael Nadal in the semifinals of Indian Wells, 16-time Grand Slam champion Roger Federer admits that he hasn’t always been confident against the Spaniard. Nadal leads their head-to-head meetings, 18-10.

"I have had doubts in the past against Rafa," Federer admitted. "It's just normal, I guess. If you get destroyed like in the finals of Paris [in 2008], next time you play him around, which for me unfortunately was the Wimbledon finals, that epic one we had, of course you'll be affected a little bit, even though now you are on your favorite surface potentially. But it did take maybe potentially take me a set or two to shake that off, and then it cost me the match in the end. So sometimes I've gone into matches with Rafa where I knew it was gonna probably difficult because either maybe he's coming in on an incredible hot streak or I'm coming in from an end where I know I probably shouldn't be winning this match tonight just because I'm not feeling right, my game is not up to par. I've maybe come through some other matches against other players, but against Rafa it's a different story."

Federer, who has been fighting a flu at Indian Wells, said he came into their semifinals with a no-lose mentality, which likely aided him. "I didn't expect myself to play so well tonight, and this is sometimes when you can pull off the biggest wins of your career," he said. "That's where I'm happy I gave myself a chance this week."

This was Federer's first victory on an outdoor hard court over Nadal since 2005.






This shows that he clearly was carrying Baggage from his previous matches against Nadal and there was little Truth in the so Called Match Up.

I wanna go ahead and say that. Federer clearly a very talented player,all the while depending on his talent alone was winning over the rest of the Tour. but when faced Nadal he clearly got rattled and never really recovered after that. He himself said that baggage was preventing him from playing at his best and thereby laying to rest the Myth called as

Bad Match Up.

Rafa = Fed Killa
03-18-2012, 07:58 PM
Delusional term used by people who cant explain why someone they dont like won a tennis match

SerialKillerToBe
03-18-2012, 08:01 PM
Doesn't explain why Rafa beat Fed the first time they ever played and took him to 5 sets the second time they played. bad match ups DO exist.

HKz
03-18-2012, 08:04 PM
The thing is, while Federer is great at attacking all the time, that is NOT his style. Back in his prime he was like a passive-aggressive player. Drawing errors using variety and consistency while attacking at any opportune moment. Against Nadal, he can't take the foot off the gas from either wing which is his problem especially over a best of 5 set match. Sure, he still takes a lot of points off Nadal, but in the long run Nadal is able to chip a few important points here and there.

Of course much of it is mental, but fact is you see how often Nadal hits to Federer's backhand, so it is up to Federer to be mentally strong and be hitting his backhand aggressively enough.

I mean you can't tell me it isn't a match up issue. Just compare the Federer vs. Nadal match up, to the Blake vs. Nadal, Nalbandian vs. Nadal, and Davydenko vs. Nadal. Sure, both Blake and Nalbandian now have losing records against Nadal, but you see why they are so problematic. Blake never lets go off the pedal despite having a one-handed backhand, and both Davydenko and Nalbandian of course have fantastic two-handed backhands to handle Nadal.

Hell, just look at Nadal vs. Djokovic now. Djokovic has always had success against Nadal in general, but until he was fully formed mentally it wasn't that consistent. Now Nadal has lost to Djokovic 7 times in a row, has beaten Federer at the slams, but Federer beats Djokovic at a slam. If that isn't also proof of different match ups, I don't know what is.

EddieNero
03-18-2012, 08:05 PM
No, Nadal's heavy high-bounce topspin forehand played to Fed's one-handed backhand doesn't affect him at all.
Rafa's amazing defense and fighting spirit is also a myth.
It's only a pathetic excuse made up by Fedtrolls.

Clay Death
03-18-2012, 08:09 PM
Delusional term used by people who cant explain why someone they dont like won a tennis match



affirmative.


it may have more of meaning in team sports like basketball.

it does not apply to tennis at all.

MaxPower
03-18-2012, 08:09 PM
Get a grip. Ofc it has truth in it. Just the fact that Mr ToiletBreak is left-handed and delays so much makes him different to play for Federer than most other players. Add to that Rafitos own gameplan of hitting most of his serves and rally shots to Feds weaker side, the BH.

Matchups exist in tennis just like they do in other individual sports like boxing. You adapt to your opponent. It would be foolish to say you could fight the same vs a defensive lefthanded boxer who try to counter you as you could vs a aggressive right handed boxer who goes all out to knock your head off.

But then because this is tennis we should pretend matchups doesn't exist so a miniority of fans could salivate over a certain H2H?

Start da Game
03-18-2012, 08:16 PM
Delusional term used by people who cant explain why someone they dont like won a tennis match

affirmative.


it may have more of meaning in team sports like basketball.

it does not apply to tennis at all.


concurred.....end of story.....

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
03-18-2012, 08:16 PM
anyone who doesnt believe there are matchups in tennis is a dickhead quite frankly

tennis 1 0 fucking 1

simple example for tard fans-

someone has a weak passing shot (you have an excellent approach slice and volley but average in all other shots) but is in control of the point and the match- you hit a deep slice and run in from then on- they panic and miss what otherwise would be a bread and butter shot for them- you win the match even though you were outplayed

Arkulari
03-18-2012, 08:16 PM
Of course it is true, otherwise you cannot explain how great players have negative h2h to others (and I don't mean Federer-Nadal but other examples)

Start da Game
03-18-2012, 08:17 PM
good thread by the way.....it has the potential to sky rocket.....

Dougie
03-18-2012, 08:17 PM
Of course match-ups exist. Just because Federer managed to overcome it, find a working gameplan, execute it well and not choke doesnt mean there was never a match-up to begin with. You would have to be blind to not see the unfavorable match-up that Nadal is to Federer.

HKz
03-18-2012, 08:20 PM
affirmative.


it may have more of meaning in team sports like basketball.

it does not apply to tennis at all.

How the hell would a team sport have match ups but an individual sport like tennis where it pits 2 against each other with different styles and tactics not? You gotta be kidding me.

Orka_n
03-18-2012, 08:23 PM
Sometimes I wonder why I post on this forum.

Of course matchups exist, is this a joke? And it's not only in tennis, it is in every sport.

DrJules
03-18-2012, 08:24 PM
An idea based in fact.

I will expect Nadal to beat Federer most times they play.

I will expect Djokovic to beat Nadal most times they play.

Murray and Federer are both more likely to beat Djokovic than Nadal.

I think match up plays at major part in explaining the above.

Agrajag
03-18-2012, 08:26 PM
affirmative.


it may have more of meaning in team sports like basketball.

it does not apply to tennis at all.

Surely you jest?

You mostly seem like a reasonable man, so I am thinking yes.

Orka_n
03-18-2012, 08:30 PM
Surely you jest?

You mostly seem like a reasonable man, so I am thinking yes.Reasonable man? He is the 2011 ACC runner-up. :facepalm:

Agrajag
03-18-2012, 08:34 PM
Reasonable man? He is the 2011 ACC runner-up. :facepalm:

I did not know that.

I just remember reading som insightful comments from him the other day. I added mostly as I also remember some strange posts.

Vyomsky
03-18-2012, 08:34 PM
What the hell sort of a stupid discussion is this? After so many years, I am surprised people actually discuss this.

Nadal always hits to Federer's bh. If the ball bounces high, he always wins. Otherwise it is an even battle. This is irrefutable. MTF is so funny sometimes.

Singularity
03-18-2012, 08:35 PM
To deny that match-ups exist is essentially to deny that different players have different strengths and weaknesses, and that some players are uniquely suited to take advantage of certain weaknesses. Nadal's forehand is uniquely suited to exploit Federer's backhand, on high bouncing surfaces. That's just a fact.

There are things Federer can do to mitigate this, like running round his backhand, or trying to take it early, but they all carry costs. If the matchup issue didn't exist, Federer wouldn't have to incur these costs.

It doesn't mean he still can't win, and if he was mentally tougher vs Nadal I'm sure he would have more victories.

HKz
03-18-2012, 08:35 PM
I did not know that.

I just remember reading som insightful comments from him the other day. I added mostly as I also remember some strange posts.

He is a strange person. He role plays with his club on this site to act like military commanders and dress up as knights and princesses.

finishingmove
03-18-2012, 08:37 PM
It's just an excuse Federer fans use when he loses to Nadal.

No such thing as matchups.

HKz
03-18-2012, 08:39 PM
It's just an excuse Federer fans use when he loses to Nadal.

No such thing as matchups.

Davydenko and Djokovic must be better players than Nadal I guess, right?

tennizen
03-18-2012, 08:43 PM
Nadal was a bad match up for Federer until Nole showed him how simply and effectively the Nadal puzzle could be solved. This new found clarity helped Federer pack his mind lighter.

HKz
03-18-2012, 08:45 PM
Nadal was a bad match up for Federer until Nole showed him how simply and effectively the Nadal puzzle could be solved. This new found clarity helped Federer pack his mind lighter.

Then why didn't Federer defeating Djokovic at Roland Garros last year do the same for Nadal? :rolleyes:

tennizen
03-18-2012, 08:46 PM
Then why didn't Federer defeating Djokovic at Roland Garros last year do the same for Nadal? :rolleyes:

There is a time lapse obviously.

HKz
03-18-2012, 08:47 PM
There is a time lapse obviously.

-.- Fact is Federer doesn't have the same style of tennis as Djokovic and he certainly doesn't have a better backhand than forehand like Djokovic.

ossie
03-18-2012, 08:57 PM
there are no bad match ups, there are only bad strategies.

fsoica
03-18-2012, 09:03 PM
It's nice to see some people are in so much pain that they had to replace turkey talking with all sorts of crappy delusions :devil:

rhinooooo
03-18-2012, 09:08 PM
This is a fucking existential vortex of a thread... saying there are no matchups is basically saying tennis doesn't exist.

TBkeeper
03-18-2012, 09:16 PM
Delusional term used by people who cant explain why someone they dont like won a tennis match

So Davydenko really is better then Nadal if not match-up :D :D ?

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
03-18-2012, 09:47 PM
there are no bad match ups, there are only bad strategies.

...................

you strategise that fed's been shanking his bh all week
so you want to play to it- thats your strategy

player a can find the backhand
player b can't find the backhand

player a has a better chance of beating federer
player b keeps running into federer's inside out FH

player a now has a matchup advantage against federer
player b does not have this matchup advantage

..........................

this isnt even up for discussion really

matchups exist in every sport

in football- you have a fast winger who loves to attack the defence

and you have 2 defenders on 2 teams, both are solid
1st defender is a better tackler but is gettin on and doesn't have the legspeed anymore
2nd defender doesn't tackle aswell but has a good turn of pace

the team with the faster defender will have less trouble against the speedy winger.............usually

rocketassist
03-18-2012, 09:53 PM
Safin's a worse player than Santoro, that's why he always lost to him, obv.

156mphserve
03-18-2012, 09:54 PM
Of course bad matchups exist. That doesn't mean that the match will end with the same result every time, it just means that one player will struggle more to win because of the bad matchup

Myrre
03-18-2012, 10:03 PM
Those who say bad match-ups don't exist just expose how truly clueless they are.

Hewitt =Legend
03-18-2012, 10:29 PM
Tennis is all about match ups although I wouldn't expect the majority of this forum to grasp this concept.

Ajde :sad:

fast_clay
03-18-2012, 10:46 PM
there are no bad match ups, there are only bad strategies.

without an imbalanced match up, there would be no scope for strategy

thread starter sets a trap on the edge of a cliff, and the usual suspects sprint off the edge yet again... mtf is a very bad match up for the folks exposing themselves here... painful to watch

MuzzahLovah
03-18-2012, 10:56 PM
This why we have people who can't understand global warming. A bad matchup doesn't mean a player can never win a match against a certain other player, it just means there is something about the matchup that inherently favors one player over the other. Just like global warming doesn't mean every day will be hotter than the last, or every year for that matter, it's an overall trend.

If this is about the Fed Nadal matchup, It's clear from the Head to Head Rafa has a matchup advantage. But if we take into account Fed winning rotterdam, winning Dubai over Murray, he's been in good form recently. Nadal on the other hand hasn't played since Australia, looked pretty awful against Nalbandian for most of the match, and hasn't been in particularly goods spirits after losing another final in a row to Djokovic. Factor in the conditions and it isn't surpising that Fed could buck the trend. This doesn't mean Fed is now the favorite over Rafa in the clay season or in Miami, the next time they play.

paseo
03-18-2012, 11:53 PM
lol

This thread is as dumb as the "Isner better than Roddick ever" thread.

Fuser59
03-19-2012, 12:07 AM
Serve-Serve -Serve....when he serves clutch he's a winnerer vs Nadal...and draws confidence from it...MATCh UPS do exist

Smoke944
03-19-2012, 12:09 AM
This is a fucking existential vortex of a thread... saying there are no matchups is basically saying tennis doesn't exist.

Indeed :lol:
only on MTF

v-money
03-19-2012, 12:22 AM
I'm pretty sure I know the exact MFT members who voted that bad match ups don't exist (pretty easy really considering that that choice only has 3 votes). They will keep defiling logic just to defend their idol. Absolutely pathetic.

HKz
03-19-2012, 12:38 AM
I'm pretty sure I know the exact MFT members who voted that bad match ups don't exist (pretty easy really considering that that choice only has 3 votes). They will keep defiling logic just to defend their idol. Absolutely pathetic.

Just read the thread. Plenty of fail here. FailRK, Clay Fail, among others are really trying to claim tennis doesn't have match ups.

I just noticed, what the fuck is up with these poll options? Clearly OP is a fucking buffoon and truly believes there are no such thing as match ups in a 1 v 1 sport where different styles and types of players play each other.

leng jai
03-19-2012, 01:31 AM
concurred.....end of story.....

All 3 double accounts uniting in one post...it's beautiful

Ajde

Roddickominator
03-19-2012, 01:58 AM
The Rafa fans all decided to get together to deny reality, much in the same way that Sapoed does. It's really a shame that people that could be good, insightful posters decide to troll just to get a rise out of Federer fans.

This thread shouldn't even be a discussion. One of the most moronic threads i've ever seen, not even worth this post that i'm making.

Everko
03-19-2012, 02:18 AM
Matchups do not exist. They are for team sports like football where there is a lot of people. Tennis is one on one and really not that complex a sport. Matchup talk is for people like Action Jackson and the infectus who like to make people think they know a lot about tennis.

thats all that must be said

BigJohn
03-19-2012, 02:21 AM
The Rafa fans all decided to get together to deny reality, much in the same way that Sapoed does. It's really a shame that people that could be good, insightful posters decide to troll just to get a rise out of Federer fans.

This thread shouldn't even be a discussion. One of the most moronic threads i've ever seen, not even worth this post that i'm making.

I have said pretty much that but my post got deleted for whatever reason. Perhaps yours will get deleted too?

BigJohn
03-19-2012, 02:22 AM
Delusional term used by people who cant explain why someone they dont like won a tennis match

affirmative.


it may have more of meaning in team sports like basketball.

it does not apply to tennis at all.

concurred.....end of story.....

Matchups do not exist. They are for team sports like football where there is a lot of people. Tennis is one on one and really not that complex a sport. Matchup talk is for people like Action Jackson and the infectus who like to make people think they know a lot about tennis.

thats all that must be said

Connect the dots...

Orka_n
03-19-2012, 02:27 AM
Matchups do not exist. They are for team sports like football where there is a lot of people. Tennis is one on one and really not that complex a sport. Matchup talk is for people like Action Jackson and the infectus who like to make people think they know a lot about tennis.

thats all that must be saidNadaltards, I tell ya. To protect their hero's legacy, they just make something up that they think sound logical, like "2004 was a weak field", or "matchups only exist in team sports". Then suddenly every single one of them agrees that this made up opinion is an objective truth even though it's really downright retarded.

What a sad bunch of clowns.

v-money
03-19-2012, 02:49 AM
Somebody please explain to me why bad match-ups would exist in a team sport but not in an individual sport. Please someone take a shot at this because it makes absolutely no sense to me.

I would think the match-up problem would be worse in individual sports. Sure there are match-up issues in team sports, for example if there is a big size advantage between basketball players at the same position. Nevertheless, in team sports the coach can counter this by making substitutions, while in tennis the player is on his own. If a player doesn't handle the slice well, he has to deal with that match-up.

Infinity
03-19-2012, 02:59 AM
The world number one can't have a bad match-up against the world number 2
Bad match-ups exist between one superior and another inferior players(teams)
For example, Lyon vs. Real Madrid was a bad match-up, but Barcelona vs. Real Madrid certainly isn't.

emotion
03-19-2012, 03:00 AM
Roger Federer and David Ferrer have pretty similar levels on clay, yet Ferrer has never beat him there. Davydenko could never beat Federer despite having one of the best God-modes himself. Nadal cannot get past Djokovic right now. There is no question Nadal is better than Murray, yet the world #1 struggles more with Murray

fast_clay
03-19-2012, 03:07 AM
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/patma2003/si4.gifThe world number one can't have a bad match-up against the world number 2
Bad match-ups exist between one superior and another inferior players(teams)
For example, Lyon vs. Real Madrid was a bad match-up, but Barcelona vs. Real Madrid certainly isn't.

HKz
03-19-2012, 03:12 AM
Matchups do not exist. They are for team sports like football where there is a lot of people. Tennis is one on one and really not that complex a sport. Matchup talk is for people like Action Jackson and the infectus who like to make people think they know a lot about tennis.

thats all that must be said

So Davydenko and Djokovic must be better players then since that is the only explanation for their dominance over Nadal right?

These true Rafatards are absolutely pathetic.

Somebody please explain to me why bad match-ups would exist in a team sport but not in an individual sport. Please someone take a shot at this because it makes absolutely no sense to me.

I would think the match-up problem would be worse in individual sports. Sure there are match-up issues in team sports, for example if there is a big size advantage between basketball players at the same position. Nevertheless, in team sports the coach can counter this by making substitutions, while in tennis the player is on his own. If a player doesn't handle the slice well, he has to deal with that match-up.

I don't get this stupidity. It shows how much Clay Fail and his followers FailFK, Failerko and Tard da Fail are really so delusional and absolutely asinine yet people think he is some kind of magical fairy living on top of a castle giving each other childish nicknames like general.

The world number one can't have a bad match-up against the world number 2
Bad match-ups exist between one superior and another inferior players(teams)
For example, Lyon vs. Real Madrid was a bad match-up, but Barcelona vs. Real Madrid certainly isn't.

What kind of crap is that?

v-money
03-19-2012, 03:19 AM
The world number one can't have a bad match-up against the world number 2
Bad match-ups exist between one superior and another inferior players(teams)
For example, Lyon vs. Real Madrid was a bad match-up, but Barcelona vs. Real Madrid certainly isn't.

That's not what a bad match-up is at all. Your example is simply one team being better than the other, overall, not any particular aspect of a team's game bothering the other team.

A bad match-ups exist when one style of play gives you an advantage over a different style of play. In basketball a perimeter shooter will have a bad match-up against players with size, as a result jump shooting teams will struggle against teams with a lot of size. Tennis likewise has many different styles of play and different styles clash in different ways - this is a match-up.

A perfect example of a bad tennis match-up is how Muster would struggle against serve and volley player.

Action Jackson
03-19-2012, 03:28 AM
Everko, stop with the jibber jabber you got more wind than a cyclone.

-Richard Krajicek, Paul Haarhuis and Michael Stich must be better overall ranked players because they were better Sampras.

- Dominik Hrbaty is better than Federer and Nadal.

Here is a true player Sergio Roitman

http://www.fuebuena.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/roitman-por-llamera.jpg

Roitman vs. Nadal 2-0

2001 Mallorca Clay (O) 32 Roitman 6-1 6-4
2003 Cherbourg CH Hard (I) F Roitman 6-3 5-7 6-4

Therefore match ups don't exist.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
03-19-2012, 03:40 AM
The world number one can't have a bad match-up against the world number 2


http://www.stevegtennis.com/rankings/2003/s2003.htm

Here is the year-end version of the rankings for 2003.

Pts Pts +/-
Rank This Last Since # Of
Rank Player Nat Diff Year Year +/- Jan 1 Trn*
---- ------ --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --
1 Roddick, Andy USA 9 4535 2045 2490 2490 23
2 Federer, Roger SUI 4 4375 2590 1785 1785 24


:devil:

Shinoj
03-19-2012, 04:50 AM
The thing is, while Federer is great at attacking all the time, that is NOT his style. Back in his prime he was like a passive-aggressive player. Drawing errors using variety and consistency while attacking at any opportune moment. Against Nadal, he can't take the foot off the gas from either wing which is his problem especially over a best of 5 set match. Sure, he still takes a lot of points off Nadal, but in the long run Nadal is able to chip a few important points here and there.

Of course much of it is mental, but fact is you see how often Nadal hits to Federer's backhand, so it is up to Federer to be mentally strong and be hitting his backhand aggressively enough.

I mean you can't tell me it isn't a match up issue. Just compare the Federer vs. Nadal match up, to the Blake vs. Nadal, Nalbandian vs. Nadal, and Davydenko vs. Nadal. Sure, both Blake and Nalbandian now have losing records against Nadal, but you see why they are so problematic. Blake never lets go off the pedal despite having a one-handed backhand, and both Davydenko and Nalbandian of course have fantastic two-handed backhands to handle Nadal.

Hell, just look at Nadal vs. Djokovic now. Djokovic has always had success against Nadal in general, but until he was fully formed mentally it wasn't that consistent. Now Nadal has lost to Djokovic 7 times in a row, has beaten Federer at the slams, but Federer beats Djokovic at a slam. If that isn't also proof of different match ups, I don't know what is.


Federer plays at a Passive Aggressive style. You could say that he is playing at around 80 90 % of his Natural Game. He is not playing at his full intensity. Its not like Federer has been said that "Mate your life depends on this match now. Now go out and play". To me that is the Best Federer and not that 80-90% Federer which often turns up. And there is a reason why he turns up like that. Thats because his 80-90 % is good enough for the rest of the Tour.

But But.. THAT WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR NADAL.Because credit to that guy Nadal because whatever talent he has been blessed with he makes 120% use of it. And for a while , In fact for a long while, Nadal's 100 % was better than Federer's 80-90 %. And that was attributed to a Bad Match Up. :rolleyes:

It seems crazy to me that a Multiple Grand Slam winner just cant work out what to do when a leftie hits a Topspin to his backhand. Hell surely he would have faced loads of leftie in his life to be comfortable with. After all a Left handed Topspin is not a fuckin Eureka.

Smoke944
03-19-2012, 04:51 AM
Everko, stop with the jibber jabber you got more wind than a cyclone.

-Richard Krajicek, Paul Haarhuis and Michael Stich must be better overall ranked players because they were better Sampras.

- Dominik Hrbaty is better than Federer and Nadal.

Here is a true player Sergio Roitman

http://www.fuebuena.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/roitman-por-llamera.jpg

Roitman vs. Nadal 2-0

2001 Mallorca Clay (O) 32 Roitman 6-1 6-4
2003 Cherbourg CH Hard (I) F Roitman 6-3 5-7 6-4

Therefore match ups don't exist.

:cool:

habibko
03-19-2012, 04:55 AM
I and many others have answered this too many times already, of course Rafatards will keep showing their ignorance and delusions time and time again

matchup is the reason Federer handles Djokovic better than Nadal does, Djokovic handles Nadal better than Federer does, Davydenko, Ferrer and Del Potro handling Nadal's game better than they handle Federer's, and the list of examples goes on and on

as for the OP using Federer's SF beatdown of Nadal as a poor excuse of an argument to deny a basic part of tennis, Federer CAN beat Nadal anywhere and everywhere, but it requires extra effort from him to overcome the matchup advantage Nadal has on high bouncing courts, and he has to perform at a really high level with his backhand remaining very solid and his footwork sharp as a razor the whole match, while all it requires from Nadal is sending his forehand high to Federer's backhand time and time again, a tactic that doesn't work against other players like Djokovic, Del Potro, Davydenko etc, in the same way Federer possesses other weapons in his style of play that allows him to handle Djokovic's game the last year much better than Nadal does

and matchups aren't just a matter of style of play, sometimes they are purely mental which might arise from other reasons besides technical ones, for instance Safin's horrible H2H against Santoro is a famous example, as Santoro's game frustrates Safin and he just can't play his game the way he likes and therefore lost most of their encounters, or take Cilic's awful record against Nalbandian because Cilic admires Nalbandian's game too much and doesn't really believe he can do better and beat him, just two examples off the top of my head

but common sense isn't going to convince such deluded minds, no point to bother

Shinoj
03-19-2012, 05:01 AM
Federer can beat Nadal everywhere only but at 100%. His 80 90 % Passive Aggressive style is not good enough for Nadal. He will swamp all over Federer.That lack of 10 20% that he doesn't apply is attributed a Bad Match Up. Its a Terrible concept really.

There is a reason none of the Tennis players ever had mentioned this Excuse of a concept ever.

HKz
03-19-2012, 05:03 AM
Federer can beat Nadal everywhere only but at 100%. His 80 90 % Passive Aggressive style is not good enough for Nadal. He will swamp all over Federer.That lack of 10 20% that he doesn't apply is attributed a Bad Match Up. Its a Terrible concept really.

There is a reason none of the Tennis players ever had mentioned this Excuse of a concept ever.

You gotta be shitting me. If you really believe there are no such things as match up issues, absolutely fucking blind. When you need 100% to beat someone, I think that is a clear sign of a matchup issue. If you are a bad matchup for someone, you don't need to be playing 100% to beat them.

Mountaindewslave
03-19-2012, 05:08 AM
the weather did not favor Nadal, his topspin was just not working in the conditions and Federer was playing sublime. the match up still is a huge factor which Nadal has as an advantage.

match ups do matter. you can't really use the 'match up' excuse for losses because tennis is an individual sport where you are expected to beat any player despite them having some favorable stances against you, BUT obviously they exist. Isner v. Djokovic the other night is a great example, obviously Isner is a bad match up for Djokovic. the reasons we can assume this is because overall Djokovic is the vastly better player yet he lost when even in form against Isner. this is obviously not always the case with losses but with Djokovic there is knowledge that a big server who can bombard the forehand often has success against him and therefore we can assume Isner is a bad matchup.

the same applies throughout tennis, certain players/styles that just happen to be awkward. it's bound to happen and quite clearly exists.

Mountaindewslave
03-19-2012, 05:11 AM
You gotta be shitting me. If you really believe there are no such things as match up issues, absolutely fucking blind. When you need 100% to beat someone, I think that is a clear sign of a matchup issue. If you are a bad matchup for someone, you don't need to be playing 100% to beat them.

Hkz is right, if the only way to beat an opponent is to play perfectly then clearly they have an advantage in their style against you from the get-go. otherwise there would be room for error as it is expected that the opponent is not a perfect machine either.
a prime example i think would be Djokovic against Nadal. clearly his flat aggressive style which he uses to expose Nadal's backhand on the baseline gives him a huge advantage AND Djokovic does not and has not been at 100% and beaten him numerous occasions in the last year.
matchups exist, it is what it is. but obviously players can't use that as an excuse.

HKz
03-19-2012, 05:15 AM
Hkz is right, if the only way to beat an opponent is to play perfectly then clearly they have an advantage in their style against you from the get-go. otherwise there would be room for error as it is expected that the opponent is not a perfect machine either.
a prime example i think would be Djokovic against Nadal. clearly his flat aggressive style which he uses to expose Nadal's backhand on the baseline gives him a huge advantage AND Djokovic does not and has not been at 100% and beaten him numerous occasions in the last year.
matchups exist, it is what it is. but obviously players can't use that as an excuse.

It is not an excuse in a particular moment if a player has chances over the other player like if he has BP opportunities, but it is an excuse as to why a player has had success playing against another player in general, so I guess I can agree with you on that.

Shinoj
03-19-2012, 05:15 AM
You gotta be shitting me. If you really believe there are no such things as match up issues, absolutely fucking blind. When you need 100% to beat someone, I think that is a clear sign of a matchup issue. If you are a bad matchup for someone, you don't need to be playing 100% to beat them.


All this while Federer was too Mentally weak to beat Nadal.That is what it is.

rickcastle
03-19-2012, 05:24 AM
All this while Federer was too Mentally weak to beat Nadal.That is what it is.

Nadal beat Federer in straight sets the first time they played, no precedence in that match for Federer to become "mentally weak" against at that time a young, unproven, up and coming tennis player. The "mentally weak" part is the result of the bad match up, not the other way around.

Match ups exist. Saying they don't is like saying tennis doesn't exist. This is why players play a different kind of game and not every player's style is similar to each other. If match ups don't exist then why would players even bother to adapt or come up with game plans if their single game plan will be good enough to beat anybody.

HKz
03-19-2012, 05:27 AM
All this while Federer was too Mentally weak to beat Nadal.That is what it is.

I'm not denying that much of a player's H2H record is attributed to mental fortitude during a match, however, in the large scheme of things to really claim match ups of play styles and type of game do not exist is completely ludicrous. How else do you explain the H2H records between Federer - Davydeko - Nadal? All mental? Nadal weak mentally against Davydenko? I thought Davydenko was the mentally weak buffoon? Nadal can't be mentally weak look at his H2H record against Federer! So Federer is mentally weak? Then how come mentally weak Federer has a clear H2H record over Davydenko, but then mentally weak Davydenko has a notably H2H winning record against mentally strong Nadal?

That man in your picture, Marat Safin, certainly has no match up issues against Santoro right? Clearly Santoro just mentally too strong and a much better player than Safin in your book then since match ups don't exist right?

2003
03-19-2012, 06:00 AM
This thread kind of relies on the premise that if player A has more slams hes better than player B..just saying.

I mean maybe Davydenko is a better tennis player than Nadal..whos to say.

Its like saying 09 Fed was better than 05 Fed cause he won 2 slams and reached the other 2 finals, where as in 05 Fed only won 2 slams and reached 2 semis.

It doesnt always work.

Its subjective.

leng jai
03-19-2012, 06:09 AM
Just when you think MTF can't be anymore stupid this thread appears. The fact this question needs to be asked is sad in itself. Of course good/bad match ups occur in tennis, they feature heavily in every individual sport. Its hard to even comprehend how anyone can say it's an issue in team sports but not individual ones. Teams are made up of several people who each have their own style and idiosyncrasies. No matter how clear cut the team strategy or ethos is it's never going to be as apparent as the style that is controlled by one person. I guess the ocean of H2H anomalies (many of which have been mentioned already) all just occurred because of dumb luck. Del Potro can't beat Federer because his shots aren't acute enough to move Federer off the court and he can't handle the low slice due to his technique/height. Gasquet will never beat Ferrer because he doesn't have the physique to out grind him, or the strength to overpower him. No S/V players matched up well against Hewitt because his returns/passes were consistently low and his lob was too good.

Its even more hliarious that it's the Nadal tards who seem to believe this phenomenon doesn't exist. His whole game is designed to be a bad match up to as many players as possible. Why did Uncle Toni teach him to play left handed when he's right handed? Purely because most players don't like and are not used to playing lefties because they aren't as common on the tour. Why did he choose to play with extreme topspin? Because most players aren't strong enough in their upper body to deal with it consistently. Why did he choose to focus on endurance and defense in his game? Because most players aren't physically or mentally strong enough to deal with it. He doesn't play better tennis in a pure sense, but he plays in a way which neutralizes the strengths of his opponent. Its a completely valid style of play and a classic example of a horror match up. When Nadal plays someone who can nullify his spin consistently with their strength (ie. a bad match up for him), he often looks like a hapless dog who has nowhere to go. The matches often ends quickly and the mental/physical fatigue of playing him doesn't become a factor.

Oh and Start Da Ajde was banned? At least he still has the Clay Death account.

Ajde.

tripwires
03-19-2012, 06:33 AM
Just when you think MTF can't be anymore stupid this thread appears. The fact this question needs to be asked is sad in itself. Of course good/bad match ups occur in tennis, they feature heavily in every individual sport. Its hard to even comprehend how anyone can say it's an issue in team sports but not individual ones. Teams are made up of several people who each have their on style and idiosyncrasies. No matter how clear cut the team strategy or ethos is its never going to be as apparent as as style that is controlled by one person. I guess the ocean of H2H anomalies (many of which have been mentioned already) all just occurred because of dumb luck. Del Potro can't beat Federer because his shots aren't acute enough to move Federer off the court and he can't handle the low slice due to his technique/height. Gasquet will never beat Ferrer because he doesn't have the physique to out grind him, or the strength to overpower him. No S/V players matched up well against Hewitt because his returns/passes were consistently low and his lob was too good.

Its even more hliarious that it's the Nadal tards who seem to believe this phenomenon doesn't exist. His whole game is designed to be a bad match up to as many players as possible. Why did Uncle Toni teach him to play left handed when hes right handed? Purely because most players don't like and are not used to playing lefties because they aren't as common on the tour. Why did he choose to play with extreme topspin? Because most players aren't strong enough in their upper body to deal with it consistently. Why did he choose to focus on endurance and defense in his game? Because most players aren't physically or mentally strong enough to deal with it. He doesn't play better tennis in a pure sense, but he plays in a which neutralizes the strengths of this opponent. Its a completely valid style of play and a classic example of a horror match up. When Nadal plays someone who can nullify his spin consistently with their strength (ie. a bad match up for him), he often looks like a hapless dog who has nowhere to go. The matches often ends quickly and the mental/physical fatigue of playing him doesn't become a factor.

Oh and Start Da Ajde was banned? At least he still has the Clay Death account.

Ajde.

GOAT post. :hearts:

Shinoj
03-19-2012, 06:57 AM
Nadal beat Federer in straight sets the first time they played, no precedence in that match for Federer to become "mentally weak" against at that time a young, unproven, up and coming tennis player. The "mentally weak" part is the result of the bad match up, not the other way around.

Match ups exist. Saying they don't is like saying tennis doesn't exist. This is why players play a different kind of game and not every player's style is similar to each other. If match ups don't exist then why would players even bother to adapt or come up with game plans if their single game plan will be good enough to beat anybody.


Not Every player in the Tour is same. You have to adapt to each player that is playing. Nadal was different from all the other players because of all the reasons mentioned, However it doesnt mean that you have to account his differences as Fuckin Gospel and attribute all your defeat to Match Up. If Nadal was different and unique Federer himself was different and Unique he could have put Nadal under pressure in so many ways. Take the Ball early,Sharpen the Angles, play more agrresively,Volley more,shorten the points. To me he just didnt adapt to Nadal and kept playing the same way.

Nadal raised the bar in front of Federer but Federer just couldnt overcome it. Obviously because he was carrying a lot of Baggage because of the previous matches.

Federer thought he was good enough for the rest of the Tour hence his play should be good enough for Nadal. He didnt even realise he had to go to that extra level to defeat Nadal which he did this week in Indian Wells.

There was nothing called as Bad Match Up. It was all in Federer's head.

Shinoj
03-19-2012, 07:01 AM
I'm not denying that much of a player's H2H record is attributed to mental fortitude during a match, however, in the large scheme of things to really claim match ups of play styles and type of game do not exist is completely ludicrous. How else do you explain the H2H records between Federer - Davydeko - Nadal? All mental? Nadal weak mentally against Davydenko? I thought Davydenko was the mentally weak buffoon? Nadal can't be mentally weak look at his H2H record against Federer! So Federer is mentally weak? Then how come mentally weak Federer has a clear H2H record over Davydenko, but then mentally weak Davydenko has a notably H2H winning record against mentally strong Nadal?

That man in your picture, Marat Safin, certainly has no match up issues against Santoro right? Clearly Santoro just mentally too strong and a much better player than Safin in your book then since match ups don't exist right?


How many times Davydenko has defeated Nadal in a Grand Slam?

Because i am not convinced if Davydenko happens to face Nadal in a Grand Slam, Nadal wont do that much Match Preparation on Davydenko to not defeat him

Lack of Match Preparation,Lack of Match Intensity,Not matching opponents Intensity and doing all those things consistently is equal of Match Up. Which is an Excuse of a term.

rickcastle
03-19-2012, 07:14 AM
Not Every player in the Tour is same. You have to adapt to each player that is playing. Nadal was different from all the other players because of all the reasons mentioned, However it doesnt mean that you have to account his differences as Fuckin Gospel and attribute all your defeat to Match Up. If Nadal was different and unique Federer himself was different and Unique he could have put Nadal under pressure in so many ways. Take the Ball early,Sharpen the Angles, play more agrresively,Volley more,shorten the points. To me he just didnt adapt to Nadal and kept playing the same way.

Nadal raised the bar in front of Federer but Federer just couldnt overcome it. Obviously because he was carrying a lot of Baggage because of the previous matches.

Federer thought he was good enough for the rest of the Tour hence his play should be good enough for Nadal. He didnt even realise he had to go to that extra level to defeat Nadal which he did this week in Indian Wells.

There was nothing called as Bad Match Up. It was all in Federer's head.

Nobody is attributing everything to a bad matchup, people are just saying that it's an undeniable factor. And I don't think even the biggest Federer fan would deny that he's a mental midget against Nadal but again, this is a result of the bad match up rather than the other way around. So you admit that every player has a different style but there's no way that one style can be an unfavorable matchup towards another? Why the fuck do the players even try to adapt the different style then? For shits and giggles? Why the fuck did Toni train Nadal to play left handed when he was born right handed? Toni just wanted to torture poor little Nadal then, I guess?

You are impossible.

Action Jackson
03-19-2012, 07:24 AM
As long as Everko, SdG and CD vote then it should make it 7.
Lurking, Rafa = Fed Killa, Shinoj, zlaja777 as for voting match ups are delusional

It's too funny. This thread needs to stay as it's a perfect way to highlight delusional thinking as for why it's delusional has been highlighted already.

How come LaLo had a fine record against Davydenko and Safin, those two are better than him yet is rubbish against Nieminen a guy who is much closer to his ability. Matchups are a factor in how certain results pan out, to deny otherwise is to say sun rises in the west.

Shinoj
03-19-2012, 07:29 AM
As long as Everko, SdG and CD vote then it should make it 7.
Lurking, Rafa = Fed Killa, Shinoj, zlaja777 as for voting match ups are delusional

It's too funny. This thread needs to stay as it's a perfect way to highlight delusional thinking as for why it's delusional has been highlighted already.

How come LaLo had a fine record against Davydenko and Safin, those two are better than him yet is rubbish against Nieminen a guy who is much closer to his ability.


You can stay happy as it wont be 7 as You yourself know you Banned Sdg for some reason.

Shinoj
03-19-2012, 07:39 AM
Its even more hliarious that it's the Nadal tards who seem to believe this phenomenon doesn't exist. His whole game is designed to be a bad match up to as many players as possible. Why did Uncle Toni teach him to play left handed when hes right handed? Purely because most players don't like and are not used to playing lefties because they aren't as common on the tour. Why did he choose to play with extreme topspin? Because most players aren't strong enough in their upper body to deal with it consistently. Why did he choose to focus on endurance and defense in his game? Because most players aren't physically or mentally strong enough to deal with it. He doesn't play better tennis in a pure sense, but he plays in a which neutralizes the strengths of this opponent. Its a completely valid style of play and a classic example of a horror match up. When Nadal plays someone who can nullify his spin consistently with their strength (ie. a bad match up for him), he often looks like a hapless dog who has nowhere to go. The matches often ends quickly and the mental/physical fatigue of playing him doesn't become a factor.

Oh and Start Da Ajde was banned? At least he still has the Clay Death account.

Ajde.


Toni obviously coached Nadal that way because he knew most of the Tour will be uncomfortable but if most of Tour played Leftie Toni would have coached Nadal rightie and if most of the Tour was playing long Grinding baseline he would have made Nadal a Serve and Volley. What i am trying to say is that it is not what style Toni has taught Nadal which has made Nadal the player he is today it is the genuius of Toni which has made Nadal what he is Today.if Federer was taught by a coach whose acumen matched Toni's and federer would have unconditional Trust on that coach he would have overcome it by now.

So what does it mean...... Toni played on every players Mind which they could have overcome easily. At best after 2 3 matches but they couldnt overcome it and what resulted in that Failure was a term known as Match Up which again comes to the point that it is an Excuse of a Term.

Action Jackson
03-19-2012, 07:41 AM
Why did Uncle Toni teach him to play left handed when hes right handed? Purely because most players don't like and are not used to playing lefties because they aren't as common on the tour. Why did he choose to play with extreme topspin? Because most players aren't strong enough in their upper body to deal with it consistently. Why did he choose to focus on endurance and defense in his game? Because most players aren't physically or mentally strong enough to deal with it. He doesn't play better tennis in a pure sense, but he plays in a which neutralizes the strengths of this opponent. Its a completely valid style of play and a classic example of a horror match up. When Nadal plays someone who can nullify his spin consistently with their strength (ie. a bad match up for him), he often looks like a hapless dog who has nowhere to go. The matches often ends quickly and the mental/physical fatigue of playing him doesn't become a factor.

Learn the above, answer the questions to the one who don't think match ups exist. Toni Nadal can be very happy with his creation.

rickcastle
03-19-2012, 07:42 AM
Toni obviously coached Nadal that way because he knew most of the Tour will be uncomfortable.


So being "uncomfortable" with a player's style of playing is still not considered a bad matchup :facepalm: Contradicting yourself across the board.

SerialKillerToBe
03-19-2012, 07:43 AM
Who knows how Nadal would have turned out if not for his crazy uncle. Right handed, single handed backhand, less spin, maybe even less asspicking. He might have even been a better player for it.

HKz
03-19-2012, 07:45 AM
Toni obviously coached Nadal that way because he knew most of the Tour will be uncomfortable but if most of Tour played Leftie Toni would have coached Nadal rightie and if most of the Tour was playing long Grinding baseline he would have made Nadal a Serve and Volley. What i am trying to say is that it is not what style Toni has taught Nadal which has made Nadal the player he is today it is the genuius of Toni which has made Nadal what he is Today.if Federer was taught by a coach whose acumen matched Toni's and federer would have unconditional Trust on that coach he would have overcome it by now.

So what does it mean...... Toni played on every players Mind which they could have overcome easily. At best after 2 3 matches but they couldnt overcome it and what resulted in that Failure was a term known as Match Up which again comes to the point that it is an Excuse of a Term.

Really? You make this comment and you are claiming there are no such thing as match ups? Why would a player be "uncomfortable" of another player's game or play style if there aren't such things as match ups as you are claiming? You fucked yourself right there bro, just drop it before you look even more foolish.


How many times Davydenko has defeated Nadal in a Grand Slam?

Because i am not convinced if Davydenko happens to face Nadal in a Grand Slam, Nadal wont do that much Match Preparation on Davydenko to not defeat him

Lack of Match Preparation,Lack of Match Intensity,Not matching opponents Intensity and doing all those things consistently is equal of Match Up. Which is an Excuse of a term.

Who gives a crap about the slams. Sure, in terms of history everything is about the slams, but we are merely talking about match ups here. Nowhere do you say only at the slams. Again, please answer my question

I'm not denying that much of a player's H2H record is attributed to mental fortitude during a match, however, in the large scheme of things to really claim match ups of play styles and type of game do not exist is completely ludicrous. How else do you explain the H2H records between Federer - Davydeko - Nadal? All mental? Nadal weak mentally against Davydenko? I thought Davydenko was the mentally weak buffoon? Nadal can't be mentally weak look at his H2H record against Federer! So Federer is mentally weak? Then how come mentally weak Federer has a clear H2H record over Davydenko, but then mentally weak Davydenko has a notably H2H winning record against mentally strong Nadal?

That man in your picture, Marat Safin, certainly has no match up issues against Santoro right? Clearly Santoro just mentally too strong and a much better player than Safin in your book then since match ups don't exist right?

Shinoj
03-19-2012, 07:49 AM
So being "uncomfortable" with a player's style of playing is still not considered a bad matchup :facepalm: Contradicting yourself across the board.

Being uncomfortable and staying that way is a Match Up. But if you chose to face the problem and work you way through it. Its not a Match Up. And then there was no such term as Match Up.

Nadal had tremendous belief in his abilities so he was a very confident player in himself. When Federer faced Nadal obviously Nadal didn't bend down to him. He imposed him own game on Federer. Federer got rattled. Federer could have played with more intensity or played with more self belief. He chose not to.

It was in Federer's Mind the thing called as Match Up and as Federer was like a king to his legion of fans they termed the coin as Match Up. As they didn't want to face the fact that their Idol was unable to overcome a player. So what they decided that it should be some practical concept because of which Federer was unable to overcome a Player. So hence the Term called as Match Up came.

HKz
03-19-2012, 07:52 AM
Being uncomfortable and staying that way is a Match Up. But if you chose to face the problem and work you way through it. Its not a Match Up. And then there was no such term as Match Up.

Nadal had tremendous belief in his abilities so he was a very confident player in himself. When Federer faced Nadal obviously Nadal didn't bend down to him. He imposed him own game on Federer. Federer got rattled. Federer could have played with more intensity or played with more self belief. He chose not to.

It was in Federer's Mind the thing called as Match Up and as Federer was like a king to his legion of fans they termed the coin as Match Up. As they didn't want to face the fact that their Idol was unable to overcome a player. So what they decided that it should be some practical concept because of which Federer was unable to overcome a Player. So hence the Term called as Match Up came.

You know, Federer wasn't the only one here.. Borg went through this, Sampras went through it, Agassi went through this, Safin went through this, Roddick went through this, among countless others. But I guess to you, none of them were because of bad match ups right?

Action Jackson
03-19-2012, 07:58 AM
You know, Federer wasn't the only one here.. Borg went through this, Sampras went through it, Agassi went through this, Safin went through this, Roddick went through this, among countless others. But I guess to you, none of them were because of bad match ups right?

Federer never struggled with Nadal or Henman/Nalbandian early on.
Sampras never struggled with Ferreira, Stich or Krajicek.
Safin never did either with Santoro, Lopez, Vinciguerra

Of course it wasn't a bad match up.

Shinoj
03-19-2012, 08:01 AM
Really? You make this comment and you are claiming there are no such thing as match ups? Why would a player be "uncomfortable" of another player's game or play style if there aren't such things as match ups as you are claiming? You fucked yourself right there bro, just drop it before you look even more foolish.




Who gives a crap about the slams. Sure, in terms of history everything is about the slams, but we are merely talking about match ups here. Nowhere do you say only at the slams. Again, please answer my question


You can get defeated in a Match or two at best. But you cannot keep on Losing to same player over 6 or 7 years. That means you were Mentally weak all this while.

rickcastle
03-19-2012, 08:03 AM
Being uncomfortable and staying that way is a Match Up. But if you chose to face the problem and work you way through it. Its not a Match Up. And then there was no such term as Match Up.

So you're basically admitting here that there is such a thing as a match up. Federer's gameplan works almost every single time for every player not named Nadal, maybe he did not change it because he was stubborn or maybe (more likely) he didn't change it because it's dangerous to change your entire gameplan that works against everyone else just for one person. He was uncomfortable and stayed that way and therefore - there is a match up.

You just keep tripping on your own words man, give up.

Shinoj
03-19-2012, 08:05 AM
So you're basically admitting here that there is such a thing as a match up. Federer's gameplan works almost every single time for every player not named Nadal, maybe he did not change it because he was stubborn or maybe (more likely) he didn't change it because it's dangerous to change your entire gameplan that works against everyone else just for one person. He was uncomfortable and stayed that way and therefore - there is a match up.

You just keep tripping on your own words man, give up.

I am trying to give out reasons for you Folks that are saying that there is a Match Up. It doesnt exist in my dictionary. I am trying to give out reasons for your mind to understand what it is a Match Up. It doesnt exist to me.

rickcastle
03-19-2012, 08:07 AM
I am trying to give out reasons for you Folks that are saying that there is a Match Up. It doesnt exist in my dictionary. I am trying to give out reasons for your mind to understand what it is a Match Up. It doesnt exist to me.

And people are disagreeing with you in droves here. Obviously, you're not convincing a lot of people, if any at all. Throw out your dictionary man.

leng jai
03-19-2012, 08:08 AM
Is your google broken? I just searched match up and it came up with a 1, 100, 000,000 hits.

Ajde.

tripwires
03-19-2012, 08:09 AM
You can get defeated in a Match or two at best. But you cannot keep on Losing to same player over 6 or 7 years. That means you were Mentally weak all this while.

Bad match up and having a mental block against a particular player aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not sure what you're arguing here - you've basically conceded that Nadal's style of play was manufactured as such so that it would make other players "uncomfortable". That's obviously a match up issue. I guess you've never played tennis before in your life - that would explain this entire thread.

tripwires
03-19-2012, 08:10 AM
And people are disagreeing with you in droves here. Obviously, you're not convincing a lot of people, if any at all. Throw out your dictionary man.

Too bad for him that Fail da Brain is banned; otherwise he'd comfortably have another fool supporting him.

Shinoj
03-19-2012, 08:11 AM
Is your google broken? I just searched match up and it came up with a 1, 100, 000,000 hits.

Ajde.


:lol:

So what?

Type Godzilla in your Google. It will show 30 Million Results. Does it exist?

Shinoj
03-19-2012, 08:14 AM
You know, Federer wasn't the only one here.. Borg went through this, Sampras went through it, Agassi went through this, Safin went through this, Roddick went through this, among countless others. But I guess to you, none of them were because of bad match ups right?

Borg,Sampras,Agassi went through against whom? Was that player in Top Ranked 10 so that it Really mattered to them or did those player defeat them in Grand Slam enough times so that they would dedicate lot more of their resources to sort those players out. Answer out yourself

leng jai
03-19-2012, 08:14 AM
So in other words you have your head in the sand and will never acknowledge it's existence no matter what. What a useless thread.

Ajde.

rickcastle
03-19-2012, 08:18 AM
Borg,Sampras,Agassi went through against whom? Was that player in Top Ranked 10 so that it Really mattered to them or did those player defeat them in Grand Slam enough times so that they would dedicate lot more of their resources to sort those players out. Answer out yourself

Why the fuck does it always have to be just grandslams? Nadal and Federer are exceptions rather than the norm to have met in grandslam finals that many times. If you are only looking for bad grandslam match ups as examples then you would have nothing but a handful and any data analysis expert will tell you than a handful amount of data is not enough to make a proper data analysis and therefore any conclusion you draw out from your handful sample would be moot.

Action Jackson
03-19-2012, 08:20 AM
Borg,Sampras,Agassi went through against whom? Was that player in Top Ranked 10 so that it Really mattered to them or did those player defeat them in Grand Slam enough times so that they would dedicate lot more of their resources to sort those players out. Answer out yourself

Agassi struggled against Karol Kucera. Sampras examples already been mentioned numerous times.

Stop trying to weasel around things like a politician attempting to change a definition to suit your own view. It's not about Slams, it's about whether match ups exist. Del Potro won the Slam final yet he is down 2-11 against Fed.

Borg was down 1-6 against Connors and ended up 15-8 in front.

Action Jackson
03-19-2012, 09:04 AM
Agassi struggled with Kucera, not Sampras it's very clear considering they weren't mentioned in the same sentence. If they were then I'd say Sampras and Agassi struggled with Kucera.

Shinoj, tip for you leave out the racist comments because of your frustration of sticking to an argument that you can't defend or want to change the usage of a term.

Action Jackson
03-19-2012, 09:14 AM
Kucera even won in Slams. His game gave Agassi nightmares, the change of pace and backhand down the line exposed Agassi's movement to that side which wasn't as good.


1996 Atlanta Hard(O) 32 Agassi 6-4 6-4
1998 Grand Slam Cup Hard(I) SF Agassi 7-6(1) 6-7(5) 2-6 7-5 6-0
1998 U.S. Open Hard (O) 16 Kucera 6-3 6-3 6-7 1-6 6-3
1999 Basel Carpet (I) QF Kucera 6-4 7-5
2000 Lyon Carpet(I) QF Agassi 6-1 7-5
2000 French Open Clay (O) 64 Kucera 2-6 7-5 6-1 6-0
2002 St. Petersburg Hard (I) 16 KUcera 6-4 6-4

Forehander
03-19-2012, 09:29 AM
You're lying to yourself if you truly think it doesn't exist. You can overcome bad match up, but you can't deny its existence.

HKz
03-19-2012, 09:59 AM
You're lying to yourself if you truly think it doesn't exist. You can overcome bad match up, but you can't deny its existence.

Yes, I think the way you put it is the simplest way to explain it. Match ups do exist but ARE NOT an excuse for poor mental play. It is up to a player's mental fortitude at the end of the day to overcome the bad match up. Shinoj is so hell bent on trying to say players who lose are merely weak mentally which obviously has merit, but you cannot deny the fact that a player has to be tough mentally against a particular because there are match up issues that make the match innately more difficult to win.

Action Jackson
03-19-2012, 10:02 AM
You're lying to yourself if you truly think it doesn't exist. You can overcome bad match up, but you can't deny its existence.

This really should end it.

EddieNero
03-19-2012, 10:04 AM
If such thing as bad match-up doesn't exit then H2H records are irrelevant.

Shinoj
03-19-2012, 10:04 AM
Wow. You deleted my Entire Post and besides i was instigated by that TripWires who questioned my Sporting skills. Good Job Moderators.Extremely good Job.:worship:

BlueSwan
03-19-2012, 10:31 AM
I think one thing worth mentioning regarding the usual Fed-Nadal debacle, is that Federer has ALWAYS had the ABILITY to blow Nadal off the court. On all surfaces. The problem has always been that this requires Federer playing aggressively with tremendous intensity - something that he can only keep up in spells because it takes him out of his comfort zone, where he would typically relax in spells. How many times have we seen Federer race to a 5-1 or 5-2 lead against Nadal, even on clay, and then squander it. This is because Federer in this scenario can pick between two main strategies:

Strategi #1) Trying to keep up the godlike intense aggressive style. This usually results in errors galore.

Strategi #2) Take the foot off the pedal for a while and compose himself, like he does against all other players. This returns the bad match-up issue to the status quo where Federer will get pinned in the backhand corner and inevitably lose.

I think THIS is the core of this particular bad match-up issue. Federer can beat Nadal, but on slow high-bouncing surfaces, it takes a very special effort (or Nadal being off). Federer playing his default game against Nadals default game loses every time under these playing conditions.

However, Federer really shouldn't lose regularly to Nadal indoors, on grass or even on medium-fast hard courts. The fact that he does lose more than he should here is more of a mental issue, IMO, than the bad match-up per se.

BigJohn
03-19-2012, 11:38 AM
:lol:

So what?

Type Godzilla in your Google. It will show 30 Million Results. Does it exist?

Delusional is in the thread title, right?

rob_z
03-19-2012, 01:10 PM
If such thing as bad match-up doesn't exit then H2H records are irrelevant.

Yes, indeed. Every player has his own strongness and weakness. And some player can better profit from a weakness from his opponents than another player. Because he has better weapons to attack it. And against a different opponent it is maybe the other way around. Than the other player can better attack it. A bad match up does excist.

Houstonko
03-19-2012, 01:31 PM
Who knows how Nadal would have turned out if not for his crazy uncle. Right handed, single handed backhand, less spin, maybe even less asspicking. He might have even been a better player for it.

Nadal wouldn't be half as good without Toni. Remember when he was young he lost a lot to many fellow young players, some of those players are ranked 100 times lower than him today. He became much better than he should have. Those who had talent like Federer, hewitt, nalbandian etc won alot when they were youth players.

Orka_n
03-19-2012, 02:12 PM
Just when you think MTF can't be anymore stupid this thread appears. The fact this question needs to be asked is sad in itself. Of course good/bad match ups occur in tennis, they feature heavily in every individual sport. Its hard to even comprehend how anyone can say it's an issue in team sports but not individual ones. Teams are made up of several people who each have their on style and idiosyncrasies. No matter how clear cut the team strategy or ethos is its never going to be as apparent as as style that is controlled by one person. I guess the ocean of H2H anomalies (many of which have been mentioned already) all just occurred because of dumb luck. Del Potro can't beat Federer because his shots aren't acute enough to move Federer off the court and he can't handle the low slice due to his technique/height. Gasquet will never beat Ferrer because he doesn't have the physique to out grind him, or the strength to overpower him. No S/V players matched up well against Hewitt because his returns/passes were consistently low and his lob was too good.

Its even more hliarious that it's the Nadal tards who seem to believe this phenomenon doesn't exist. His whole game is designed to be a bad match up to as many players as possible. Why did Uncle Toni teach him to play left handed when hes right handed? Purely because most players don't like and are not used to playing lefties because they aren't as common on the tour. Why did he choose to play with extreme topspin? Because most players aren't strong enough in their upper body to deal with it consistently. Why did he choose to focus on endurance and defense in his game? Because most players aren't physically or mentally strong enough to deal with it. He doesn't play better tennis in a pure sense, but he plays in a which neutralizes the strengths of this opponent. Its a completely valid style of play and a classic example of a horror match up. When Nadal plays someone who can nullify his spin consistently with their strength (ie. a bad match up for him), he often looks like a hapless dog who has nowhere to go. The matches often ends quickly and the mental/physical fatigue of playing him doesn't become a factor.

Oh and Start Da Ajde was banned? At least he still has the Clay Death account.

Ajde.Post of the month.

Hewitt =Legend
03-19-2012, 02:15 PM
I am still heavily aroused and I first saw that post about 7 hours ago.

Ajde :sad:

Infinity
03-19-2012, 02:45 PM
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/patma2003/si4.gif

Yeah, thanks

That's not what a bad match-up is at all. Your example is simply one team being better than the other, overall, not any particular aspect of a team's game bothering the other team.

A bad match-ups exist when one style of play gives you an advantage over a different style of play. In basketball a perimeter shooter will have a bad match-up against players with size, as a result jump shooting teams will struggle against teams with a lot of size. Tennis likewise has many different styles of play and different styles clash in different ways - this is a match-up.

A perfect example of a bad tennis match-up is how Muster would struggle against serve and volley player.

Could you have a bad match-up against the world's best player?
No, because he is the best player in the world and by definition is beating you because he is better than you are.
Now, if Nadal for example beats Djokovic, Federer, Murray and all other top 10 players but loses all his future matches against Isner. This is a bad match-up.
On the other hand if he beats all except Djokovic, then it's simply a case of Djokovic better than Nadal. It's not bad match up.


Now the example we have. Does Federer lose to all lefty players? No. Can you remember the last time he lost to one of them?
Does he lose to all players who spin the ball? No
He loses to the best lefty. He loses to the one with the best top spin shots. He loses because Nadal is the best at what he does, not just because this style bothers Federer.

http://www.stevegtennis.com/rankings/2003/s2003.htm

Here is the year-end version of the rankings for 2003.

Pts Pts +/-
Rank This Last Since # Of
Rank Player Nat Diff Year Year +/- Jan 1 Trn*
---- ------ --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --
1 Roddick, Andy USA 9 4535 2045 2490 2490 23
2 Federer, Roger SUI 4 4375 2590 1785 1785 24


:devil:

Yeah, it shows Federer was better playing Roddick, not Roddick having match-up problem with him.

Orka_n
03-19-2012, 03:01 PM
Could you have a bad match-up against the world's best player?
No, because he is the best player in the world and by definition is beating you because he is better than you are.:haha:

I'm sorry Johnny Groove my friend. I respect you but I stand by my word. The fandom you belong to has got to have the lowest avarage IQ.

emotion
03-19-2012, 03:04 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Orka_n again.

fast_clay
03-19-2012, 03:52 PM
Could you have a bad match-up against the world's best player?
No, because he is the best player in the world and by definition is beating you because he is better than you are.


yes, because you might have a fighting chance against all other players in the top 5... except against the best player who for some reason has an incredible read on your serve from the outset, forcing you to eat a bakery product in each of the first sets you've played...

it is a very basic hypothetical, but much easier to fathom than your post which made me dumber because i took it seriously

Infinity
03-19-2012, 06:28 PM
yes, because you might have a fighting chance against all other players in the top 5... except against the best player who for some reason has an incredible read on your serve from the outset, forcing you to eat a bakery product in each of the first sets you've played...

it is a very basic hypothetical, but much easier to fathom than your post which made me dumber because i took it seriously

But if he has only an incredible read on your serve and that's his only talent, then how come he is the best player in the world?
If he is the best player in the world, then he has multiple abilities, not just the ability to read serve or spin the ball, and in this case you can't say you're losing to him only because of that one ability.

BigJohn
03-19-2012, 10:38 PM
Just when you think MTF can't be anymore stupid this thread appears. The fact this question needs to be asked is sad in itself. Of course good/bad match ups occur in tennis, they feature heavily in every individual sport. Its hard to even comprehend how anyone can say it's an issue in team sports but not individual ones. Teams are made up of several people who each have their on style and idiosyncrasies. No matter how clear cut the team strategy or ethos is its never going to be as apparent as as style that is controlled by one person. I guess the ocean of H2H anomalies (many of which have been mentioned already) all just occurred because of dumb luck. Del Potro can't beat Federer because his shots aren't acute enough to move Federer off the court and he can't handle the low slice due to his technique/height. Gasquet will never beat Ferrer because he doesn't have the physique to out grind him, or the strength to overpower him. No S/V players matched up well against Hewitt because his returns/passes were consistently low and his lob was too good.

Its even more hliarious that it's the Nadal tards who seem to believe this phenomenon doesn't exist. His whole game is designed to be a bad match up to as many players as possible. Why did Uncle Toni teach him to play left handed when hes right handed? Purely because most players don't like and are not used to playing lefties because they aren't as common on the tour. Why did he choose to play with extreme topspin? Because most players aren't strong enough in their upper body to deal with it consistently. Why did he choose to focus on endurance and defense in his game? Because most players aren't physically or mentally strong enough to deal with it. He doesn't play better tennis in a pure sense, but he plays in a which neutralizes the strengths of this opponent. Its a completely valid style of play and a classic example of a horror match up. When Nadal plays someone who can nullify his spin consistently with their strength (ie. a bad match up for him), he often looks like a hapless dog who has nowhere to go. The matches often ends quickly and the mental/physical fatigue of playing him doesn't become a factor.

Oh and Start Da Ajde was banned? At least he still has the Clay Death account.

Ajde.

Ajde.

fast_clay
03-19-2012, 11:24 PM
But if he has only an incredible read on your serve and that's his only talent, then how come he is the best player in the world?
If he is the best player in the world, then he has multiple abilities, not just the ability to read serve or spin the ball, and in this case you can't say you're losing to him only because of that one ability.

over time, the read on the serve is the aspect of our hypothetical chumps game that is causing an easy 1st set against your hypothetical number 1... it is the outstanding feature not present in other clashes vs the top 5...

no one said your hypothetical number 1 did not have other attributes...

see, a clash of styles is not so hard to understand...

HKz
03-19-2012, 11:29 PM
Really pathetic thread. Good going Clay Fail, FailFK, Failerko and Tard da Fail for getting on your multi accounts and posting your bullshittery.

BigJohn
03-20-2012, 03:05 AM
Really pathetic thread. Good going Clay Fail, FailFK, Failerko and Tard da Fail for getting on your multi accounts and posting your bullshittery.

I'm happy the mighty quartet proudly made those moronic statements. It just might open some eyes...

Roddickominator
03-20-2012, 05:14 AM
This was already one of the worst threads i've ever seen within the first three pages.....and now has completed its mission of being the worst thread ever. I really can't believe that people are seriously debating this. You're only giving credibility to true delusional morons by even acknowledging their ridiculous opinions. Just let this thread die an excruciating and painful death and move on.

Myrre
03-20-2012, 04:30 PM
Guess some newbies have difficulties understanding the match-up concept as "everyone" have similar playing styles these days.
Was easier to spot before when you had much more variety in surfaces and style of play.
Here is the easiest example I can think of:
You are a S&V player and you're going to play one of the following:
A) a baseliner who is not very good at passing.
B) a baseliner who usually loses against player A, but who loves a target.
Which player would you prefer to meet?

Anyway, if there were no match-up issues, that would mean if A>B and B>C, then A>C. This is clearly not the case (thank God) and this is due to match-ups.

out_grinder
03-20-2012, 04:54 PM
Yeh Nadal's game is based on being a bad match up for as much of the tour as possible.

His unnatural left-handedness is designed to be awkward for righties. His extreme topspin is designed to be difficult for righties backhands.

But then you could say that Federer's accurate and penetrating forehand is designed to be difficult to get to. His low slice is designed to be hard to attack. His serve is deigned to be diffiult to return.

In short, all players are trying to be a bad match up for everyone. Therefore overall there is no such thing as a bad match up. There are only players who are better than you.

rickcastle
03-20-2012, 05:03 PM
Yeh Nadal's game is based on being a bad match up for as much of the tour as possible.

His unnatural left-handedness is designed to be awkward for righties. His extreme topspin is designed to be difficult for righties backhands.

But then you could say that Federer's accurate and penetrating forehand is designed to be difficult to get to. His low slice is designed to be hard to attack. His serve is deigned to be diffiult to return.

In short, all players are trying to be a bad match up for everyone. Therefore overall there is no such thing as a bad match up. There are only players who are better than you.

Exactly. Everyone knows Davydenko is just simply better than Nadal on all accounts.

tripwires
03-20-2012, 05:05 PM
Surely 59 to 5 says it all.

Raiden
03-20-2012, 05:19 PM
The thing is, while Federer is great at attacking all the time, that is NOT his style.That is no one's style. No player can go "all out" set after set after set consecutively against Nadal.

A player has to breathe and take a step off the gas from time to time. But that means the player has to still be good enough to keep up with Nadal in rallies to prevent hardcore topspin ass-whopping.

And that is precisely something Djokovic is capable of: he can keep up a rally with Nadal long enough to exhale and then prepare for a new round of full pressure blast.

Federer on the other hand needs to KO Rafa before Rafa gets ahead of him.

So the more "attacking" your style is, the more swiftly you need to act, in order to get the job done.

Myrre
03-20-2012, 05:31 PM
Yeh Nadal's game is based on being a bad match up for as much of the tour as possible.

His unnatural left-handedness is designed to be awkward for righties. His extreme topspin is designed to be difficult for righties backhands.

But then you could say that Federer's accurate and penetrating forehand is designed to be difficult to get to. His low slice is designed to be hard to attack. His serve is deigned to be diffiult to return.

In short, all players are trying to be a bad match up for everyone. Therefore overall there is no such thing as a bad match up. There are only players who are better than you.

There will always be players depending on their style that will either play into your strengths (comfort zone) or expose your weaknesses (get you out of your comfort zone). Why is this so hard to grasp?

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 05:33 PM
I dont understand this thread at all, in few sports is the term matchup so important as in tennis. Players are alone out there with their strengths and weaknesses and very little can be done when they play someone who can exploit their weaknesses or take away their strengths. It is quite obvious really, players like Dolgopolov, Santoro and Tomic cause problems for Djokovic but not so much for Rafa and Federer because they have no problem with variation of pace, Davydenko and Del Potro are bad matchups for Rafa because they take time away from him and his long forehand swing, not so much for Djokovic and Federer who can play more aggressive and take time away from them and not let them have target practice from the baseline. These matchups are very obvious, Federer-Nadal is still a matchup issue despite Federer practicing very had specifically to play Rafa, some weaknesses you simply cant overcome, specially when it is between top players (a great tennis player can overcome weakness against a lesser ranked players with superior mental strength like Rafa-Berdych).

habibko
03-20-2012, 05:45 PM
Exactly. Everyone knows Davydenko is just simply better than Nadal on all accounts.

and Santoro better than Safin

Action Jackson
03-20-2012, 05:45 PM
and Santoro better than Safin

Roitman better than Nadal, don't forget it.

samanosuke
03-20-2012, 06:56 PM
The Gooch better than Nadal, I mean this one was NID but still good to know

MalwareDie
03-20-2012, 06:59 PM
Wtf. Why is this thread still open?

Orka_n
03-20-2012, 07:06 PM
Yeh Nadal's game is based on being a bad match up for as much of the tour as possible.

His unnatural left-handedness is designed to be awkward for righties. His extreme topspin is designed to be difficult for righties backhands.

But then you could say that Federer's accurate and penetrating forehand is designed to be difficult to get to. His low slice is designed to be hard to attack. His serve is deigned to be diffiult to return.

In short, all players are trying to be a bad match up for everyone. Therefore overall there is no such thing as a bad match up. There are only players who are better than you.The more desperate you become, the dumber your arguments get. Stop spouting nonsense already.

HKz
03-20-2012, 07:07 PM
That is no one's style. No player can go "all out" set after set after set consecutively against Nadal.

A player has to breathe and take a step off the gas from time to time. But that means the player has to still be good enough to keep up with Nadal in rallies to prevent hardcore topspin ass-whopping.

And that is precisely something Djokovic is capable of: he can keep up a rally with Nadal long enough to exhale and then prepare for a new round of full pressure blast.

Federer on the other hand needs to KO Rafa before Rafa gets ahead of him.

So the more "attacking" your style is, the more swiftly you need to act, in order to get the job done.

I didn't say go all out, I said attacking. That is what make someone like Davydenko so difficult for Nadal because he doesn't let up on either wing. Federer likes to throw in the variation. A slice, topspin, flat, etc. Someone like Davydenko who normally just hits through every ball causes problems for Nadal, and you see when Federer plays less of his variation style of play he gets the better of Nadal more often.

Where is the one person controlling the accounts of Failerko, Tard da Fail, Clay Fail and FailFK? Posts one time using his quad accounts and leaves.

SetSampras
03-20-2012, 07:31 PM
"matchups" are excuses as to why someone's favorite player can't win. You beat your "bad matchup" other times, yet lose to him other times. An excuse.. Nothing more. Nadal has beaten Fed more times then not (mostly at the slams ) because hes a better player on that day... Period.

Djoker has beaten Nadal recently in the past year, because he has been the better player on those days

HKz
03-20-2012, 07:35 PM
"matchups" are excuses as to why someone's favorite player can't win. You beat your "bad matchup" other times, yet lose to him other times. An excuse.. Nothing more

Krajicek, Haarhuis and Stich say hi.

SetSampras
03-20-2012, 07:38 PM
Krajicek, Haarhuis and Stich say hi.

And they were better players on certain days. Sampras fans don't hide hide behind the "matchup excuse" like Fed fans love to do. Sampras also had his share of wins over guys like Krajicek as well. Nadal has beaten Fed all the times at the slams the last 5 years because he brings a bigger game and more mental toughness to the big stage against Roger then vice versa

HKz
03-20-2012, 07:41 PM
And they were better players on certain days. Sampras fans don't hide hide behind the "matchup excuse" like Fed fans love to do. Sampras also had his share of wins over guys like Krajicek as well

Yeah and Federer doesn't have his fair share of his wins over Nadal off clay right? So lucky this Sampras that he avoided clay consistent and a decade long dominance of a clay courter or else he would have been probably in a worse boat.

SetSampras
03-20-2012, 07:43 PM
Yeah and Federer doesn't have his fair share of his wins over Nadal off clay right? So lucky this Sampras that he avoided clay consistent and a decade long dominance of a clay courter or else he would have been probably in a worse boat.

Thats the point. Fed does have his share of wins over Nadal. So why is it always "matchup problems" when Fed loses? :rolleyes: Yet when he wins.. Nothing

HKz
03-20-2012, 07:49 PM
Thats that point. Fed does have his share of wins over Nadal. So why is it always "matchup problems" when Fed loses? :rolleyes: Yet when he wins.. Nothing

So how do you explain the dilemma between Federer/Djokovic/Nadal. Clearly Federer > Djokovic > Nadal > Federer. Or Davydenko/Federer/Nadal. Clearly Federer > Davydeko > Nadal > Federer. Right? You are pathetic if you don't think match ups don't exist. Sampras fortunate Krajicek was inconsistent at the slams, or else he would have some nightmares. Hell, even after Krajicek's form dropped, Sampras was almost 2 sets to love down against Krajicek at the US Open.

Orka_n
03-20-2012, 08:08 PM
SetSampras siding with the delusional Castletards on something involving Federer, never in freaking doubt.

luie
03-20-2012, 08:59 PM
And they were better players on certain days. Sampras fans don't hide hide behind the "matchup excuse" like Fed fans love to do. Sampras also had his share of wins over guys like Krajicek as well. Nadal has beaten Fed all the times at the slams the last 5 years because he brings a bigger game and more mental toughness to the big stage against Roger then vice versa

Apart from who brings the biggest game on the day , it also depends on the surface. Fed has never beaten nadull at the FO n AO . But has a 2-1 advantage on "slower" higher bouncing grass and NO matches at the USO.
Similar Sampras has never beaten Agassi @ the FO or AO is 0-3 . And only beats him at fast slick Wimby and USO. So surface plays a part.

Mechlan
03-20-2012, 09:08 PM
Thats the point. Fed does have his share of wins over Nadal. So why is it always "matchup problems" when Fed loses? :rolleyes: Yet when he wins.. Nothing

Do you think that a bad matchup means one player will never win?

Pretty clear who the trolls are based on this thread. No such thing as matchups. :haha:

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 09:10 PM
And they were better players on certain days. Sampras fans don't hide hide behind the "matchup excuse" like Fed fans love to do. Sampras also had his share of wins over guys like Krajicek as well. Nadal has beaten Fed all the times at the slams the last 5 years because he brings a bigger game and more mental toughness to the big stage against Roger then vice versa

Sampras at his late 20s was without solutions against 19 year old Hewitt on his favorite surfaces, imagine if peak Hewitt had played around the whole 90s?

samanosuke
03-20-2012, 09:11 PM
start da sampras priceless like always

Tennis-Life
03-20-2012, 09:15 PM
start da sampras priceless like always

:superlol:

Sunset of Age
03-20-2012, 09:21 PM
start da sampras priceless like always

:haha:

http://thumbs.imagekind.com/member/481226a6-5439-445a-aaf9-48c7401a702d/uploadedartwork/650X650/2be1db37-a51b-4e19-a13e-a01fc2c59fde.jpg

vamos ajde! :rocker2:

luie
03-20-2012, 09:22 PM
Even I feel sorry for nadull to have false fans like Setsampras n STG , bitter ex Sampy fans riding on his back. At least I can understand Tangerine Dream n star ex Roddick fans riding nadull , because they have suffered directly.

luie
03-20-2012, 09:27 PM
How come laver never brought his "BIG" game against Rosewall at the French Pro.

luie
03-20-2012, 09:45 PM
I wonder who again will say there is no such thing as match-up ? Take your picks foxy,rafaminator , rafawoneverything ,muzezuka ,vida , vamos me rafa, nadullslutpova ,illogical .Buzzilla , guga 1234, bad religion .

BigJohn
03-20-2012, 10:46 PM
This was already one of the worst threads i've ever seen within the first three pages.....and now has completed its mission of being the worst thread ever. I really can't believe that people are seriously debating this. You're only giving credibility to true delusional morons by even acknowledging their ridiculous opinions. Just let this thread die an excruciating and painful death and move on.

I disagree. This thread has a purpose. It exposes tardism. And from what I have read, what is given to the true delusional morons (a term I do not question by the way, even more accurate now that Start da Sampras joined in on the insanity) is extremely far from credibility.

fast_clay
03-21-2012, 02:36 AM
for so long djokovic would suffer defeat at the hands of nadal, even though quite obviously to tennis observers djokovic was the player of the two with the most complete backcourt game... yet, by comparison, so immature and weak of mind was djokovic that he would fail to press home any back court advantage he may have had... the mental game of nadal was just so strong and there lay the imbalance... so clutch on the big points... nadal always had maturity beyond his years...

but these things always balance out...

fast forward to 2011, and the mental imbalance had been redressed... djokovic's resolve had not been broken by nadal, only strengthened... djokovic had accepted what he must do to match his foe nadal... he discarded the wta-like need for drama, the vain need to be loved and the penchant for retirements... and what unfolded was the biggest match up issue since federer vs nadal... what is ironic was that without nadal, the djokovic of 2011 could not have happened...

what we have today is the match up issue that tennis observers expected to unfold between nadal and djokovic... nadal's default two shot finishing combo vs federer that has collected innumerable points (of high and heavy forehand to the ad court + finishing strike to the deuce court or in behind) did not work against djokovic... in fact, as seen in the match up, djokovic likes striking it up there at chin level... similarly, murray's inability to strike a confident forehand down the line, allows nadal to camp in his favoured position way right of centre and take control of the rallies murray often lets him...

but with djokovic, nadal has nowhere to retreat to... for nadal, there is nowhere to run... nowhere to make the rally neutral... nowhere on the court he can find some breathing space with some 50/50 ball... djokovic is all over him like a very severe case of genital warts - and all over him all of the time... just like an ageing nalbandian displayed in indian wells, djokovic's ability to strike down the line and cross court with authority from both shoulder height and from a low contact height means that nadal's dominant rally position is now more centred - nadal can see that djokovic can strike easily at the open ad court should he offer the space, and djokovic obliges just to let him know... what is the result of nadal's more centred rally position: yes, that's right... nadal's weaker backhand is exposed...

the match-up of djokovic, nalbandian and davydenko vs nadal is perhaps the most obvious match up issue we have on hardcourts today... less so on clay as nadal has more retrieval and recovery time, but djokovic showed us in 2011 that the match up does extend to clay also...

players adept at cross court and down the line shotmaking at any contact height are nadal's match up issue... unfortunately for nadal he does not possess the skills to overcome this match up issue... he has tried slicing down the line to djokovic to change the rally speed and work djokovic's strange inability to do anything substantial with off pace balls, but the nadal slice is largely inferior to those that have gained reward against djokovic with it, it is better left as something defensive...

simply put, nadal has nowhere to run vs djokovic... gone are the days where the match up was based in the mental realm... as i said, that imbalance has been redressed....

we are witnessing the match up issue of this age... one that will cause a negative H2H match up record where once it was mightily positive... the technical limitations that nadal's mental fortitude hid vs supreme ball strikers is negated...

leng jai
03-21-2012, 03:30 AM
Sensible posts + MTF = bad match up

Ajde

Henry Chinaski
03-21-2012, 04:47 AM
I know you should never let trolls wind you up but once in a while they catch you with your guard down and nail you with a sucker punch.

My god. Shaking my head so hard I might dislocate my fucking neck.

fast_clay
03-21-2012, 04:52 AM
I know you should never let trolls wind you up but once in a while they catch you with your guard down and nail you with a sucker punch.

My god. Shaking my head so hard I might dislocate my fucking neck.

indeed, there is some spellbinding stuff here... though, i believe i have pretty much identified their pain, and thus their motives, with my previous post...

Nole Rules
03-21-2012, 12:16 PM
for so long djokovic would suffer defeat at the hands of nadal, even though quite obviously to tennis observers djokovic was the player of the two with the most complete backcourt game... yet, by comparison, so immature and weak of mind was djokovic that he would fail to press home any back court advantage he may have had... the mental game of nadal was just so strong and there lay the imbalance... so clutch on the big points... nadal always had maturity beyond his years...

but these things always balance out...

fast forward to 2011, and the mental imbalance had been redressed... djokovic's resolve had not been broken by nadal, only strengthened... djokovic had accepted what he must do to match his foe nadal... he discarded the wta-like need for drama, the vain need to be loved and the penchant for retirements... and what unfolded was the biggest match up issue since federer vs nadal... what is ironic was that without nadal, the djokovic of 2011 could not have happened...

what we have today is the match up issue that tennis observers expected to unfold between nadal and djokovic... nadal's default two shot finishing combo vs federer that has collected innumerable points (of high and heavy forehand to the ad court + finishing strike to the deuce court or in behind) did not work against djokovic... in fact, as seen in the match up, djokovic likes striking it up there at chin level... similarly, murray's inability to strike a confident forehand down the line, allows nadal to camp in his favoured position way right of centre and take control of the rallies murray often lets him...

but with djokovic, nadal has nowhere to retreat to... for nadal, there is nowhere to run... nowhere to make the rally neutral... nowhere on the court he can find some breathing space with some 50/50 ball... djokovic is all over him like a very severe case of genital warts - and all over him all of the time... just like an ageing nalbandian displayed in indian wells, djokovic's ability to strike down the line and cross court with authority from both shoulder height and from a low contact height means that nadal's dominant rally position is now more centred - nadal can see that djokovic can strike easily at the open ad court should he offer the space, and djokovic obliges just to let him know... what is the result of nadal's more centred rally position: yes, that's right... nadal's weaker backhand is exposed...

the match-up of djokovic, nalbandian and davydenko vs nadal is perhaps the most obvious match up issue we have on hardcourts today... less so on clay as nadal has more retrieval and recovery time, but djokovic showed us in 2011 that the match up does extend to clay also...

players adept at cross court and down the line shotmaking at any contact height are nadal's match up issue... unfortunately for nadal he does not possess the skills to overcome this match up issue... he has tried slicing down the line to djokovic to change the rally speed and work djokovic's strange inability to do anything substantial with off pace balls, but the nadal slice is largely inferior to those that have gained reward against djokovic with it, it is better left as something defensive...

simply put, nadal has nowhere to run vs djokovic... gone are the days where the match up was based in the mental realm... as i said, that imbalance has been redressed....

we are witnessing the match up issue of this age... one that will cause a negative H2H match up record where once it was mightily positive... the technical limitations that nadal's mental fortitude hid vs supreme ball strikers is negated...

This is too sensible for MTF. Thanks mate.

Raiden
03-23-2012, 12:06 AM
I didn't say go all out, I said attacking. That is what make someone like Davydenko so difficult for Nadal because he doesn't let up on either wing. Federer likes to throw in the variation. A slice, topspin, flat, etc. Someone like Davydenko who normally just hits through every ball causes problems for Nadal, and you see when Federer plays less of his variation style of play he gets the better of Nadal more often.

Where is the one person controlling the accounts of Failerko, Tard da Fail, Clay Fail and FailFK? Posts one time using his quad accounts and leaves.LMAO what?

By the way just for the record (in case there exists a dope smoking MTF mod that shoots first and asks questions later) I'm not a quad account of not a single other account whatsoever, neither of Start Da Game nor of ClayDeath nor of whoever the fuck this lunatic nutsack calling himself HKz is referring to as "failFK".

HKz
03-24-2012, 12:16 AM
LMAO what?

By the way just for the record (in case there exists a dope smoking MTF mod that shoots first and asks questions later) I'm not a quad account of not a single other account whatsoever, neither of Start Da Game nor of ClayDeath nor of whoever the fuck this lunatic nutsack calling himself HKz is referring to as "failFK".

Do you have a comprehension issue? Was I talking to you in referance to those four accounts?

fast_clay
03-24-2012, 12:27 AM
anyone who doesnt believe there are matchups in tennis is a dickhead quite frankly



http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/patma2003/si4.gif

As Shown By Federer after Beating Nadal, Where he clearly took the attack to Nadal; taking the Ball early Playing Aggresively all the while and hence beating Nadal.

Does it now show that there was nothing called as Bad match Up for federer against Nadal. It was the same old SLOW COURT same Old Nadal and his game Plan of hitting Looping Balls to federer's Backhand. And Gues what? It somehow didnt work.


What does it show then?

All the while when Federer lost to nadal he purely had a Mental Block which came from losing the previous Match Badly. He said in his quotes also after his victory against Nadal





This shows that he clearly was carrying Baggage from his previous matches against Nadal and there was little Truth in the so Called Match Up.

I wanna go ahead and say that. Federer clearly a very talented player,all the while depending on his talent alone was winning over the rest of the Tour. but when faced Nadal he clearly got rattled and never really recovered after that. He himself said that baggage was preventing him from playing at his best and thereby laying to rest the Myth called as

Bad Match Up.

Delusional term used by people who cant explain why someone they dont like won a tennis match

affirmative.


it may have more of meaning in team sports like basketball.

it does not apply to tennis at all.

concurred.....end of story.....

It's just an excuse Federer fans use when he loses to Nadal.

No such thing as matchups.

there are no bad match ups, there are only bad strategies.

Matchups do not exist. They are for team sports like football where there is a lot of people. Tennis is one on one and really not that complex a sport. Matchup talk is for people like Action Jackson and the infectus who like to make people think they know a lot about tennis.

thats all that must be said

The world number one can't have a bad match-up against the world number 2
Bad match-ups exist between one superior and another inferior players(teams)
For example, Lyon vs. Real Madrid was a bad match-up, but Barcelona vs. Real Madrid certainly isn't.

Yeh Nadal's game is based on being a bad match up for as much of the tour as possible.

His unnatural left-handedness is designed to be awkward for righties. His extreme topspin is designed to be difficult for righties backhands.

But then you could say that Federer's accurate and penetrating forehand is designed to be difficult to get to. His low slice is designed to be hard to attack. His serve is deigned to be diffiult to return.

In short, all players are trying to be a bad match up for everyone. Therefore overall there is no such thing as a bad match up. There are only players who are better than you.

"matchups" are excuses as to why someone's favorite player can't win. You beat your "bad matchup" other times, yet lose to him other times. An excuse.. Nothing more. Nadal has beaten Fed more times then not (mostly at the slams ) because hes a better player on that day... Period.

Djoker has beaten Nadal recently in the past year, because he has been the better player on those days

fast_clay
03-24-2012, 12:32 AM
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/patma2003/smiley-taunt001-1.gif

MTF SHITLIST

Shinoj
Rafa = Fed Killa
Clay Death
Start da Game
finishingmove
ossie
Everko
Infinity
out_gringer
SetSampras

tripwires
03-24-2012, 07:29 AM
:haha:

leng jai
03-24-2012, 07:47 AM
Arsen finally makes the cut :dance:

Ajde.

Mr. Oracle
03-24-2012, 07:47 AM
I think posts like this should be a banable offence.

I'm sure I'm at least 2% stupider for having read it.

Jesus fucking Christ.

While I'm no stranger to opening a can of forum self-righteousness, you easily surpass my degree of condescension and belong to that rare elite of internet douche-bag-cowards by insulting deity for no apparent reason.

I've read your posts--you are no Socrates either.

Commie rat bastard.

Action Jackson
03-24-2012, 07:55 AM
One on that list is trolling.

Asadinator
03-24-2012, 08:00 AM
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/patma2003/smiley-taunt001-1.gif

:superlol:

Hewitt =Legend
03-24-2012, 08:31 AM
Arsen in illustrious company there.

Ajde :sad:

Action Jackson
03-24-2012, 08:32 AM
Arsen in illustrious company there.

Ajde :sad:

Arsen is a class troll.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
03-24-2012, 01:45 PM
setsampras

if you really dont believe in matchups then

stich-agassi
stich- sampras


i guess stich must be better than sampras right?

nothing do to with the huge matchup advantage a great reciever like agassi would have
and a not so great reciever like sampras wouldn't have :wavey:

Vida
03-24-2012, 01:52 PM
your quality as a player is determined by the number of bad matchups you have. its a simple truth.

fsoica
03-24-2012, 03:35 PM
So, geniuses-non-matchup-believers, I want an answer:

Let's suppose you're a one handed backhand righty player.
How do you play on today's surfaces (choose one at will) a lefty with a huge topspin forehand who plays 100% balls to your backhand side, balls which are coming almost always right up to your neck?

Pls. enlighten me.

BigJohn
03-24-2012, 08:18 PM
Federer should switch to a two-handed backhand...

@Sweet Cleopatra
03-24-2012, 09:16 PM
Federer wants Grand-slams to be played out of 3 sets as in WTA to beat Rafa and Djokovic in slams. I like Federer, I don't know why he suddenly became jealous we are in Rafa-Djokovic rivalry era. Cmon Federer each star comes its time to twinkle and its time to fade. Rafa and Djokovic deserve the flash time they are getting now.

ossie
03-24-2012, 09:56 PM
Federer should switch to a two-handed backhand...agreed

BigJohn
03-24-2012, 10:54 PM
agreed

:rolleyes:

latso
03-24-2012, 11:09 PM
Of course there are bad match-ups

Anyone who has held a racquet more than once knows this.

Theoriticians can only guess and speculate

BigJohn
03-25-2012, 01:39 AM
Of course there are bad match-ups

Anyone who has held a racquet more than once knows this.

Theoriticians can only guess and speculate

Affirmative old sport. I concur.

fmolinari2005
03-25-2012, 01:52 AM
Brain ... a delusional fancy term or does it has any truth in it?

Sunset of Age
03-25-2012, 01:55 AM
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/patma2003/smiley-taunt001-1.gif

MTF SHITLIST

Shinoj
Rafa = Fed Killa
Clay Death
Start da Game
finishingmove
ossie
Everko
Infinity
out_gringer
SetSampras

Brain ... a delusional fancy term or does it has any truth in it?

There's your answer.
I miss MitziWitzi (or whatever) on that list though.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
03-25-2012, 03:10 AM
Federer wants Grand-slams to be played out of 3 sets as in WTA to beat Rafa and Djokovic in slams. I like Federer, I don't know why he suddenly became jealous we are in Rafa-Djokovic rivalry era. Cmon Federer each star comes its time to twinkle and its time to fade. Rafa and Djokovic deserve the flash time they are getting now.

no, he wants the RULES OF TENNIS TO BE ENFORCED

when a certain someone takes twice the alloted time between points that cheating

and then his pathetic fan base defend his actions no matter what

badreppin you if you say anything critical of their hero

:hatoff:

out_here_grindin
03-25-2012, 03:17 AM
One on that list is trolling.

just one?

fast_clay
03-25-2012, 03:23 AM
just one?

yeah it's true, just the one... the others are not trolling... and because they are not trolling this thread will become one of the longest standing sources of ridicule in internet history...

emotion
03-25-2012, 03:24 AM
I know that some aren't, and one is. But there are a few I'm unsure of

dodo
03-26-2012, 01:52 AM
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/patma2003/smiley-taunt001-1.gif

MTF SHITLIST

Shinoj
Rafa = Fed Killa
Clay Death
Start da Game
finishingmove
ossie
Everko
Infinity
out_gringer
SetSampras
Heh, pretty spot on.
Half of those I have on ignore, the other half (CD, RFK, SdG, Everko) provide some nice comic relief.

dodo
03-26-2012, 02:02 AM
for so long djokovic would suffer defeat at the hands of nadal, even though quite obviously to tennis observers djokovic was the player of the two with the most complete backcourt game... yet, by comparison, so immature and weak of mind was djokovic that he would fail to press home any back court advantage he may have had... the mental game of nadal was just so strong and there lay the imbalance... so clutch on the big points... nadal always had maturity beyond his years...

but these things always balance out...

fast forward to 2011, and the mental imbalance had been redressed... djokovic's resolve had not been broken by nadal, only strengthened... djokovic had accepted what he must do to match his foe nadal... he discarded the wta-like need for drama, the vain need to be loved and the penchant for retirements... and what unfolded was the biggest match up issue since federer vs nadal... what is ironic was that without nadal, the djokovic of 2011 could not have happened...

what we have today is the match up issue that tennis observers expected to unfold between nadal and djokovic... nadal's default two shot finishing combo vs federer that has collected innumerable points (of high and heavy forehand to the ad court + finishing strike to the deuce court or in behind) did not work against djokovic... in fact, as seen in the match up, djokovic likes striking it up there at chin level... similarly, murray's inability to strike a confident forehand down the line, allows nadal to camp in his favoured position way right of centre and take control of the rallies murray often lets him...

but with djokovic, nadal has nowhere to retreat to... for nadal, there is nowhere to run... nowhere to make the rally neutral... nowhere on the court he can find some breathing space with some 50/50 ball... djokovic is all over him like a very severe case of genital warts - and all over him all of the time... just like an ageing nalbandian displayed in indian wells, djokovic's ability to strike down the line and cross court with authority from both shoulder height and from a low contact height means that nadal's dominant rally position is now more centred - nadal can see that djokovic can strike easily at the open ad court should he offer the space, and djokovic obliges just to let him know... what is the result of nadal's more centred rally position: yes, that's right... nadal's weaker backhand is exposed...

the match-up of djokovic, nalbandian and davydenko vs nadal is perhaps the most obvious match up issue we have on hardcourts today... less so on clay as nadal has more retrieval and recovery time, but djokovic showed us in 2011 that the match up does extend to clay also...

players adept at cross court and down the line shotmaking at any contact height are nadal's match up issue... unfortunately for nadal he does not possess the skills to overcome this match up issue... he has tried slicing down the line to djokovic to change the rally speed and work djokovic's strange inability to do anything substantial with off pace balls, but the nadal slice is largely inferior to those that have gained reward against djokovic with it, it is better left as something defensive...

simply put, nadal has nowhere to run vs djokovic... gone are the days where the match up was based in the mental realm... as i said, that imbalance has been redressed....

we are witnessing the match up issue of this age... one that will cause a negative H2H match up record where once it was mightily positive... the technical limitations that nadal's mental fortitude hid vs supreme ball strikers is negated...
This needs to be on every page of this thread.

Everko
03-28-2012, 07:48 PM
yeah it's true, just the one... the others are not trolling... and because they are not trolling this thread will become one of the longest standing sources of ridicule in internet history...

your ridiculous ACC odds will be ridiculed for the history. You don't have an idea what you are talking about as always.

BigJohn
03-28-2012, 11:56 PM
your ridiculous ACC odds will be ridiculed for the history. You don't have an idea what you are talking about as always.

Your signature is not an example of someone who has no idea what he's talking about?

fast_clay
03-29-2012, 02:09 AM
your ridiculous ACC odds will be ridiculed for the history. You don't have an idea what you are talking about as always.

Unlikely.

Your membership in Clowndom is secure, however.

fast_clay
04-15-2012, 12:14 AM
as we move into another serious part of the tennis calendar, it is worth following this helpful guide of which posters are really worth listening to...

or, more to the point... those that are not...

Orka_n
04-15-2012, 12:42 AM
your ridiculous ACC odds will be ridiculed for the history. You don't have an idea what you are talking about as always.His odds were actually pretty spot on because they were reflecting the general forum attitude at the time towards the posters in question. It was not based on personal preference. Too bad he had to close it down though. (It was also sad that there were some chicken-shit quitters on that list.)

Everko
06-01-2012, 09:04 PM
Your signature is not an example of someone who has no idea what he's talking about?

which of them is wrong? Tell me

rocketassist
06-01-2012, 10:55 PM
Another shit bump.

v-money
11-19-2012, 12:27 AM
This was surely the thread of the year. :worship:

Certinfy
11-19-2012, 12:29 AM
Of course it's not some delusional shit.

Ferrer is a bad matchup for Federer, the H2H speaks for itself. But then it just shows that Federer really is the GOAT considering his positive H2H in a bad matchup.

v-money
11-19-2012, 12:36 AM
This thread could still be a good place for some ACC campaigning, as Certenify has demonstrated.

End da Game
11-19-2012, 12:50 AM
I think 'mental blocks' are overrated as a concept

I doubt players at the very top (fed, nadal, djoko, delpo, murray) will somehow get scared into choking away winnable matches just because of who's on the other side of the court, mentally they're much bigger than that, we're talking about multiple grand slam winners, these guys have come through many highly pressurized situations before.

IMO the reason for lopsided h2h is due to somewhat uncontrollable circumstances like court surface, form, injury, styles of play.